non empirical in term of hidden and invisible domain, non material forms. For example, quantum mechanics and the equations that describe superstring theories which postulate the universe with not less than 10 dimensions.
It is too long to make to much examples and I didn't want to complicate to much first post of the series. But explore Brian Green and reed some of the books. Hidden Reality for example. He is mathematician and physic.
I understand how you might think that this is not actually evidences, but that would too be another posts. You can as well put an eye on Michia Kaku and his book about hyperspace or Stephen Hawking - Inflation, Singular Instantons and Eleven Dimensional Cosmology. My ancestors were as well scientists and cosmologists well known and I was reading their manuscripts and books since kid. We had scientific academy and they too knew about higher realms and non empirical reality. I hope this helps.
Regarding evidence, etymology of the word from latin - evidentia, meaning obvious to the eye or mind. Now eye, seeing (not watching or looking) , perception and open mind is also a very long post. If you like I can write about that too in details.
The scientists you mention do not support the assertion of non empirical hidden dimensions. In fact they assert the exact opposite and seek to explore the possibilities of other dimensions in an empirical fashion, hence their work as scientists. You are grossly misrepresenting their work.
This is woo peddling pseudo-science akin to Deepak Chopra not Stephen Hawking.
Have you read any of those proposed books or you just googled and glued onto the shortcut informations? All you do is pointing a needle in the hay. I have read many books of those who I mention and many more. Just because you don't have similar perception to relate to the content doesn't mean it's "pseudo". Instead you will insult Deepak Chopra without any awareness who Maharishi is or what ayurweda is. I won't waste my time to explain you how you just insulted 5000 years of history on Earth and work and knowledge of many great man and experts just because you can't relate to the content.
Nomen est omen. Kind regards, O.
I have read all of if not most of the books published by the authors you have mentioned. This is not a matter a perception. This is a matter of you perverting their work for your means. You are being incredibly dishonest in your assertions and portrayal of our current scientific understanding of the universe.
Your use of woo-woo pseudo-science needs to be pointed out. If you take that as an insult so be it. The age of an idea does not remove it from criticism.
I'm not saying your theories of other dimensions are untrue. I am open to the possibility. I am saying your assertive language of this theory as being true and supported by current scientific understanding is bogus. You are insulting scientists by misrepresenting their work.